36 g » ,   B‘EDERAL_B@PORTEB• , .    
As to laches, I ought to say thatwe do not think that laches can be
_ attributed to the complainant in this case, under the facts surrounding
it. Parties are not required to litigate at all pointsat the same time.
They may give notice to an infringcr that he is infringing, and from that
time forward no acquiescence will be presumed, provided the suit is in-
stituted within a reasonable time. There are cases under the general
equitable doctrine thatafter notice of a superior right a party who pro-
' ceedsproceeds at his peril, and can acquire no benefits thereafter as against
the party who has given notice of his superior right. We think the doc-
trine of laches has ,no. foundation in this case. The facts fail to break
down, we think, the, strong primafacie case made on behalf of the com-
plainant., So we continue the injunction in the case against the Michi-
gan Lubricator Co. and order an injunction to issue in the case against
Grace andParsha1l. _. ‘ 2 a _ , .
BROWN, J`., (orally;) _ I am very glad to have had the assistance of the
circuit judge in this case, as it seems to me a very close one, and I should
have hesitated to take the responsibility of continuing this injunction,
if I had notbeen advised by him upon this hearing. While I am not
I free fromdoubtwith regard to the case} I think, upon the whole, the
defendants have not established ananticipation of .this patent beyond a
reasonable doubt. , I should not be surprised that, iftthis case were fur-
ther heard, it might resolve itself into something like Va question of law.
While if the aihdavits produced on behalf ofthe defendants here are taken
broadly for their face value, the anticipation would be proven, I think
that we should look upon them with a good deal ofsuspicion. The de-
fensereally is that Mr. Parshall made certain machines in 1869 antici-
patorvof this device, and his testimonylseems so to indicate this. The
reply is virtually that these machines were not operative, and so Judge
Lownu. found withregard to the Champion mills andthe copper-works
machine,—<—that they burst and were not operative devices. The testi-
mony of Mr. Baugh would tend to show that the machine which was
put into his mill was an operative device, but in reply to that it may be
said that.Mr. Parshall, who is engaged in the patent business, who is an
inventor by profession, and who has shown himself yery alert to secure
patents for his own benefit, had not sufficient confidence in this machine
to induce him to apply. for a patent for it until 1878. Now, we have to
consider too, in this connection, the fact that when_ Parshall was exam-
ined as awitness in the other cases, and in his interference in the pat-
ent-oliice, he never set up any of these machines except those which were
sold to the Champion mills and to the copper—works, and no allusion is
made inghis testimony to the other machines upon which reliance is
placed in this case. His excuse is,tas _1 understand, that the glass was
not good enough, was notstrong enough, to makethe machine operative;
that while the same thing would have been operative upon a low pres-
sure engine, the extra pressure of the.,steam in the high pressure engine
burst the glass, and rendered the machine inoperative,-—that is, when
ased upon that class of engines. His explanation amounts to this: that